The site will guide residents through the legal steps to getting a divorce. The system is designed to help people with low income save money by foregoing attorney fees. The various steps on the site contain full information, including legal definitions. They also have sets of questions to help users determine which forms they need to fill out.

"It kind of guides you through, it asks questions. Once it knows your name, it will put it in every space it should go," Kris Mazzeo, director of the circuit/civil family division of the clerk of courts, said.

Once residents complete the online forms necessary, they merely have to mail the signed forms to the county clerk's office. Some forms do require a notary signature.

Broward County officials feel the service will save its citizens time and inconvenience.

"People come downtown and it's expensive to park. If we can keep them from making extra trips to the courthouse, it would be great for them," director Mazzeo said.

The city may also have some selfish motives in adopting this change of policy. The online application process is expected to simplify the paperwork needed by the county clerks and eliminate incomplete applications and angry customers.

Broward County is also launching similar legal services for small claims lawsuits and tenant evictions.

Broward County is not the first county to bring its divorce process online. The opulent Palm Beach County also has adopted such a system, along with several others.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

That sounds like a nightmare - after all, there is a downside to the lack of commitment. For example, what if you got really sick - would the person you're just dating stick around and take care of you? What if you lost your job would your "girlfriend" support you for a while? Maybe so, maybe not.

What about kids? Don't even think of bringing up kids in a non-committed relationship - that's most always going to be a disaster. Raising kids is hard when you have a good situation - anything else just makes it that much harder.

Coming from a single parent upbringing, I can speak for experience on this one.

Father walked out on us before I entered middle school, bringing the remaining family from well off to dirt poor. My mother worked three jobs so we could attend private school. By the time I entered college my mother had worked it down to two jobs and a decent roof over our head. Sure, we didn't go on vacations, but she tried her best so we went with some nice things. We grew up without our mother ever being around so it accelerated resposibility and maturity.

What did I learn from that? Hard work pays off, marriage is sacred, and ambition and drive can come from anger and hate. Sure others mileage may vary, but its not about the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.

Unplanned and outside of marriage are two different things. You can be married and have an unplanned pregnancy.

As far as the number of pregnancies outside of marriage, most are a disaster. We've got 14-17 year olds getting pregnant these days. This is not a good thing. No it's not the babies fault. But if its parents had been smarter, it wouldn't have existed to start with.

That said I'm against abortion. You made the mistake. You live with the consequences. The kid shouldn't suffer for your act of stupidity.

That could be used as an argument either for or against abortion, couldn't it? :o)

There are a lot of people who believe that abortion has helped to solve a lot of serious social problems, for example the theory that the drop in crime in the 1990's was related to the legalization of abortion in the United States.

And if you think about it, bringing unwanted children into the world is not exactly a very good situation either. The outcome for those children is typically pretty bad in general.

I think the kicker is in where one decides to draw the line at abortion; at what week does it go from ethical to murder? Brain stem activity, according to wiki, shows up starting around 54 days; some women may not even be sure they're pregnant at that point.

Of course, could say that once the process is started, being that the natural outcome is a child without intervention then at any week its murder, but society has moved much too far in favor of abortion to ever look at it like that again.

At any rate, once it crosses societies magical dateline of death, what ever that may be, I would say that there really arent many fates worse than death.

As for the women that try to get abortions all the way out in the 3rd trimester, I say abort the women, but that's just me.

Until the fetus can live on its own without the mother its nothing more than a parasite. Parasites can be removed if the host deems it necessary. The fetus is no different than any other paraside that dies when we medically remove it from the host (Worms, etc...). People pose moral dilema's, but the details in regards to abortion is pretty clear cut from a medical and scientific point of view.

That's inaccurate. Parasites, by definition, are of different species from the host organism. In addition, a one year old child couldn't live on his or her own without the mother. Would you then go so far as to say that "aborting" a born infant is morally neutral as well?

quote: That's inaccurate. Parasites, by definition, are of different species from the host organism.

Incorrect. You read the definition from Wikipedia which is inaccurate. Normally I would have no problem with wikipedia information but it didn't seem quite right. I rechecked the definition of Parasite with Encarta, Dictionary.com, and a Biology text book.An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.That's the definition of a parasite. A Fetus fits this definition. Moving on.

quote: In addition, a one year old child couldn't live on his or her own without the mother.

Sure it can, premature babies survive just fine without their mothers all the time. So do babies who's mother dies in child birth. The child has basic needs that can be satisfied by any caretaker, the mother is not required. After a year this becomes even easier as many internal organs are more developed and can handle harsher environments.

quote: Would you then go so far as to say that "aborting" a born infant is morally neutral as well?

No. Even premature babies can survive without their mother. (See above). You are jumping to a conclusion based on an incorrect interpretation of my statement.

I'm not a fan of abortion, however, you are wrong on one count for sure. My wife is a social worker, and believe me, many unwanted children go through fates worse than death on a daily basis. The ones who make it through the system relatively undamaged mentally and/or physically are few and far between.

> That could be used as an argument either for or against abortion, couldn't it? :o)

Maybe - although how well it would actually stand up would depend on whether you consider a fetus a person.

> There are a lot of people who believe that abortion has helped to solve a lot of serious social problems, for example the theory that the drop in crime in the 1990's was related to the legalization of abortion in the United States.

I haven't heard that before. I don't see how those dots connect - I mean, Roe v Wade happened decades before the 1990s.

> And if you think about it, bringing unwanted children into the world is not exactly a very good situation either. The outcome for those children is typically pretty bad in general

It's definitely a lose-lose. Depending on your moral convictions, though, your choice of which loss to take can vary.

"> There are a lot of people who believe that abortion has helped to solve a lot of serious social problems, for example the theory that the drop in crime in the 1990's was related to the legalization of abortion in the United States.

I haven't heard that before. I don't see how those dots connect - I mean, Roe v Wade happened decades before the 1990s."

What he mant, and I agree is that Roe v wade in the early 70 = less unwanted unattended and un(properly)parented kids in the 70's and 80's = less criminals in the 90's and today.

Teenage pregnancy rates have been dropping consistently each year. Considering how much the federal govt spends on free condoms for the community, it could be an easy explanation. Its an amazing sight seeing boxes of condoms in the 1000 count in all different flavors and colors. I call them the party pack.

"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates